Skip to content

PNOY’s Highly Mediocre “Conditional Cash Transfers”

June 9, 2011

One of the surest ways to spot an altruist-collectivist or statist is by investigating the content of a person’s or a politician’s public speeches and socio-political programs. Based on President Noynoy Aquino’s pronouncements and programs, there’s no doubt that he indeed fits the bill.

During his first state of the nation address, the President talked about leveling the playing field through an antitrust law. (See my opposition to PNOY’s antitrust law here and here. Last year, the president talked about one of his major poverty alleviation programs: the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) program.

The president vowed to improve the  program and make it more effective for the benefit of the most vulnerable members of society.

“I am happy to report that we are fine-tuning the mechanisms of this initiative. We will solve these problems, undo the bottlenecks, and make this program more effective,” the President said.

This news report further states:

The President told the program beneficiaries that the DSWD is implementing the National Household Targeting System to identify the families that most urgently need assistance in order to ensure that social funds are spent wisely on the most vulnerable members of our society.

“A well-targeted CCT program will truly afford the poor’s opportunity to enjoy basic human services that were once extremely difficult to avail,” he added.

The President also said that the fiscal year 2011 proposed budget will fund urgently needed programs on education, health and job generation.

In the said budget, P21.2 billion was allocated for CCT which will be distributed to 2.3 million household beneficiaries.

The 4Ps is a poverty reduction and social development program that provides conditional cash grants to extremely poor households to improve their health, nutrition and education, particularly of children aged 0-14.

Now, Quezon City Rep. Susan A. Yap introduced a bill entitled AN ACT TO REDUCE POVERTY AND PROMOTE HUMAN CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE CREATION OF A NATIONAL CONDITIONAL FUND TRANSFER PROGRAM. 

This proposal is designed to address the following social problems:

  • Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
  • Achieve universal primary education
  • Promote gender equality
  • Reduce child morality
  • Improve maternal health

The proposal also seeks to create an agency called Inter-Agency Council composed of several departments, namely, DSWD, DOH, DepEd, DILG, NEDA and NAPC. This council will act as a collegial body and shall have the following functions:

  • Formulate policies for the programs. This means the agency is given a quasi-legislative power to issue policies.
  • Oversee the implementation of the program.
  • Determine adjustments to grant rates and conditionalities in the course of the implementation of the program based on the studies and assessment of the program.

Ironically, not all the avowed leftists and leftist party-lists in Congress support this proposal. For instance, self-confessed progressive/leftist and Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño criticized Akbayan Representative Walden Bello’s 180-degree turn from being a harsh critic of the CCT to one of its most ardent proponents.

Casiño revealed that the program’s proposed budget for 2011 is P21.2 billion, which will “give cash subsidies to 1.3 million poor families purportedly to entice them into sending their children to school and to avail of health services for women and children. By 2016, target beneficiaries will be 4 million households with a budget of around P40-P50 billion.”

Since this CCT was designed and implemented by some socialist countries in Latin America and Africa and is being supported by globalist money lenders like IMF and World Bank, why is Casiño against this proposal?

Well, he said: “Conditional cash transfers are especially attractive to governments and funding agencies advocating poverty reduction because it artificially improves poverty statistics overnight.”

Furthermore, 37 lawmakers, most of whom are allies of the president, opposed the allocation of P21.9 billion to the conditional cash transfer program of the administration.

In a manifesto, the lawmakers said they would work for the realignment of funds intended for the CCT to the construction of schools hospitals, health centers, housing programs, agriculture and others that directly address the needs of the poor for jobs, livelihood and services.

“We, the undersigned, express our opposition to the allocation of P21.9 billion for Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs) in the 2011 General Appropriations Act at the expense of more vital social and economic services,” they said.

They said the amount appropriated under the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) of the Department of Social Welfare and Development represents a two-fold increase from the P10 billion allocated to the same program in 2010.

“(It indicates) that CCTs have become the Aquino administration’s main strategy for poverty alleviation,” they said.

They questioned the wisdom of allotting such a substantial portion of government’s scarce resources to CCTs given the grave lack of funds for basic social services and economic services.

“The (CCT is) a costly palliative, an unsustainable program of dole-outs that will perpetuate the politics of patronage and encourage a culture of mendicancy. CCTs cannot take the place of a long-term strategy that addresses the root causes of poverty through asset redistribution and job generation,”“We, the undersigned, express our opposition to the allocation of P21.9 billion for Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs) in the 2011 General Appropriations Act at the expense of more vital social and economic services,” they said.

They said the amount appropriated under the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) of the Department of Social Welfare and Development represents a two-fold increase from the P10 billion allocated to the same program in 2010.
“(It indicates) that CCTs have become the Aquino administration’s main strategy for poverty alleviation,” they said.

They questioned the wisdom of allotting such a substantial portion of government’s scarce resources to CCTs given the grave lack of funds for basic social services and economic services.

“The (CCT is) a costly palliative, an unsustainable program of dole-outs that will perpetuate the politics of patronage and encourage a culture of mendicancy. CCTs cannot take the place of a long-term strategy that addresses the root causes of poverty through asset redistribution and job generation,”

True, CCT is just one of the mediocre ways to allegedly combat poverty, as it negates/overlooks the role of the markets in poverty alleviation. But if we are to oppose this welfare statist program, it must be opposed on the following grounds:

  1. It’s an unjust tool of wealth redistribution. It’s like taking Pedro’s money in order to serve the welfare of Juan.
  2. The current economic crisis was/is caused by the government through its failed economic policies, regulations, punitive taxes, protectionism, cronyism, etc.
  3. Poverty is an economic issue, NOT a political issue. The government cannot legislate extreme poverty and hunger because this statist strategy will only create more problems and make the existing problem/s worse.
  4. It can be a source of corruption. In fact, it is corruption from the very beginning since its clear and obvious purpose is to serve the current administration and its proponents. This program is being supported by the current administration because it can be used to prop up the dwindling popularity of our ratings-conscious President.
  5. Economically, it is anti-free markets, and, in reality, it cannot alleviate poverty. So why waste “public” money?
  6. If the government were to alleviate poverty, the only solution is to revise the charter and then focus on economic and even political reforms. The solution is to guarantee economic freedom by forever scrapping our current 60-40 protectionist arrangements, repealing regulatory measures and laws, abrogating the labor code, and eliminating income tax and other forms of taxes.
Advertisements
54 Comments leave one →
  1. Gypo Nolan permalink
    June 16, 2011 3:38

    I’ve been reading your blog, adn you have piqued my interest. However I have some honest questions concerning capitalism.

    Would you regulate the selling and purchasing of nuclear weapons, as over time they will only become more common?

    Would all drugs be unregulated and legal?

    As is the case with Free trade, is it not a problem when businesses take their production over seas because workers can be paid far less there? What of the job losses?

    Also, isn’t their a problem with assuming that a man’s ideas and resources are fully his by right? If you are born into a more educated more wealthy family then you have a natural edge which often leads to the “ideas” you might speak of.

    I read your post about Capitalism and Imperialism. However throughout US history the government has invaded and disrupted other nations for the admitted benefit and “protection” of US business interests. Won’t that always be a problem?

    Isn’t it in the interest of capitalism to expand its markets, and wouldn’t it be inclined to use coercive force to open up a market if it were being resisted?

    How is any of this fair, and how is a government supposed to act in such a case?

    Would not the ideal capitalism take place once equal parameters were set for all? For it is impossible to say that all human beings have earned their current place in society, and isn’t it limiting the best ideas of all mankind from occurring if most are held down by force?

    At the end of the day, once a nation is appropriately grown economically, what harm does it do to provide water, food, shelter, medical aid, and education to it’s citizens. I find it hard to believe that the costs are too high whilst insane military budgets like that of the US exist.

    What about global warming? Surely you can not deny it’s existence and doesn’t it pose a threat worthy of regulation? Isn’t it common sense?

    Also, often times in capitalist society superior methods and products are prevented from being created because the current businesses want to maintain the statues quo. They refuse to invest in the new devises thus making them better and cheaper, because they fear having to switch over into an unknown market.

    Such is the case with automobiles currently. More efficient non oil based cars are very possible, however it is not in the interest of the oil companies to make the change. Aren’t they dragging down society and the world with them all for the sake of capitalism?

    I am also highly concerned with how it seems that no longer are producers producing based on consumer needs, but are instead telling the consumer what they need, what they want. How can capitalism exist when the consumers are slaves to the producers.

    Also, there is much talk of benefiting from one’s ideas, but what about one’s work? Is that worth nothing? If a man is blessed with physical talent and the ability to work hard, but no brains or ingenuity, is he destined to suffer?

    I believe the reason capitalism is associated with Imperialism is because of the expression “to the victor goes the spoils” which seems to apply to both. Imperialism is without rules, one nation or entity simply destroys and submits another based on military superiority. With capitalism their are no rules and the “greatest” man shall succeed over others. With Imperialism the greater culture is not the victor simply most often it is simply the more save military culture. With capitalism it seems the greater man is not the victor but the one with more favorable circumstances (often set in place by imperialism) the one more willing to commit foul, the one more adept at deceit, the one who treats their workers worse and makes their products with cheaper inferior components. If this is not true, how can you be sure, after all if their are no government regulations and if the masses are all stupid won’t they buy anything, isn’t all of this very possible and in fact likely?

    • June 16, 2011 3:38

      You asked: “Would you regulate the selling and purchasing of nuclear weapons, as over time they will only become more common?”

      Here’s my answer to you. I fully agree with this argument:

      “When it comes to area weapons and explosive devices, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for individuals to make, own, transport, buy, and sell these devices…but inidividual self-defense is not one of them. LICENSED INDIVIDUALS have legitimate reasons to possess REGISTERED general purpose machine guns, grenades, RPGs, artillery, tanks, guided bombs, guided missiles, supersonic warplanes, and aircraft carriers. Who else do you think it is that manufactures, tests, and sells them to the U.S. military or American law enforcement agencies, or–under EXPORT LICENSE–to government and security services outside the country.

      “Another obvious reason to allow private ownership of explosives and destructive devices is for mining, construction, or other industrial purposes. It would, for example, be legitimate to license nuclear explosive devices to a private individual who wants to use them to construct a canal (Don’t laugh, Edward Teller was once asked to assess the feasibility of excavating a canal with hydrogen bombs–a canal that would bypass the Suez….well, okay, go ahead and laugh. Dr. Teller dismissed the idea immedately because there is no way to design a ground burst that doesn’t lead to extensive radioactive fallout.)

      “In my industry (nuclear power), it is unlawful for private individuals or companies to own fissile material, but it is lawful to possess it under license. But, in the case of uranium fuel, it is only lawful to possess it if the degree of enrichment does not exceed 5% (which is about two-thirds of the way by the process of gasseous diffusion from natual uranium that is 0.7% U-235 to bomb-grade uranium that is ~92% U-235). If a nuclear power plant decides to use uranium fuel enriched to 10% or 20%, D.O.E. soldiers will bring it and stand guard over it while it is burned and stand guard over the spent fuel if it contains more than 5% U-235 or a high percentage of plutonium.

      “The principle to keep in mind when it comes to firearms and other destructive devices is that we all have a right to self defense. It is what the intellectuals of the British enlightenment and America’s founders called the first law of nature. We deligate that right to the government so that we may live under the rule of law. That deligation is our license to the government by which we permit it to exist. It is the basis of its legitimate claim to sovereignty.

      “In deligating the right to self defense, we are not ALIENATED from it at any time. Any time the government is unable (or unwilling) to defend us from the immediate threat of bodily harm from a physical attack, we may exercise that right. But we may exercise it only in the degree and to the extent to which the government fails to provide for our immediate physical defense.”

      You asked: “Would all drugs be unregulated and legal?”

      Yes. All drugs should be legal and unregulated.

      You asked: “As is the case with Free trade, is it not a problem when businesses take their production over seas because workers can be paid far less there? What of the job losses?”

      That none of your damn business. Create your own business if you want. In a free society, you have all the rights and freedom to start your own business.

      You asked: “Also, isn’t their a problem with assuming that a man’s ideas and resources are fully his by right? ”

      I have no problem with that. If you own your resources, then that’s yours by all means. If you created PATENTABLE invention, you are entitled to IP rights, e.g., patent.

      You asked: “If you are born into a more educated more wealthy family then you have a natural edge which often leads to the “ideas” you might speak of.”

      So what? You’d like to pass a law that would make us all physically and mentally equal?

      You asked: “I read your post about Capitalism and Imperialism. However throughout US history the government has invaded and disrupted other nations for the admitted benefit and “protection” of US business interests. Won’t that always be a problem?”

      Read that blog again. Any proof to your claim that “throughout US history the government has invaded and disrupted other nations for the admitted benefit and “protection” of US business interests”? By the way, America in the past 100 years, especially since 1983, has become a mixed economy, not capitalist economy. Know the proper definition of capitalism and mixed economy. Of course, America committed war mistakes in the past like the Vietnam War and the Iraq, but most of them were initiated by the socialistic democrats and fascistic neo-cons.

      You asked: “Isn’t it in the interest of capitalism to expand its markets, and wouldn’t it be inclined to use coercive force to open up a market if it were being resisted?

      In a capitalist state, the only proper role of the government is to protect individual rights. The government has no power to expand its markets. The main players under a free market economy are the businessmen. Read this again to know the meaning of capitalism… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/capitalism-and-imperialism-are-contradiction-in-terms/#comment-11484

      You asked: “What about global warming?”

      It’s a HOAX.

      Read more…

      • Gypo Nolan permalink
        June 16, 2011 3:38

        “I have no problem with that. If you own your resources, then that’s yours by all means. If you created PATENTABLE invention, you are entitled to IP rights, e.g., patent.”

        I am not thinking so much about a patent……It seems to me like the world is akin to playing a game of Monopoly in which some players start out with far more money than others, the poorer players still have a smaller chance of winning, but it is unlikely. In my mind the goal of capitalism (and also life) is to evolve as a human race and to bring out the best that humans can offer. However it seems to be flawed because imperialism has already set up whom and who does not have resources to win the “game of monopoly”. The west did not get where they are today based on cultural or economic superiority, it was mostly based on technological military superiority. The capitalist institutions in power today are still part of that imperialism, making it very difficult to engage in the sort of capitalism you speak of.

        “Any proof to your claim that “throughout US history the government has invaded and disrupted other nations for the admitted benefit and “protection” of US business interests”?”

        The book Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer would be a good place to start. I don’t love this clip, but it is the shortest summary of the US annex of Hawaii. This was an annex lead by capitalists whom wanted to better their sugar buisness.

        “In a capitalist state, the only proper role of the government is to protect individual rights. The government has no power to expand its markets. The main players under a free market economy are the businessmen.” So what then when businessmen have the power to expand their markets, I would hope the government had some sort of power to check them, at least under national law. However where do you draw the line on what is and isn’t limiting capitalism?

        I don’t know why you think global warming is a hoax. Even if you did surely you must be aware of the deforestation problems in China, the worldwide decline in fish populations, and decreases in air quality. Not to mention the threat of human overpopulation. Also, you may not believe in the current global warming, but are you denying the possibility for a similar phenomenon to exist? Certainly if it did exist in a model, regulation would need to occur.

  2. Gypo Nolan permalink
    June 16, 2011 3:38

    One more question lol, what about when a company has it’s own military, as was the case with the East India Company, and as is the case with Black Water providing mercanaries to any buyer? As of now the US government provides companies with military muscle to “protect” their interests, I know in a model capitalism that would not occur, but how would a government respond should a company arm itself? Where do they draw the line? Answers please. Thank you ahead of time.

    • June 16, 2011 3:38

      You really don’t have a clue. You’re talking of a fascist government wherein its despots rule like Hitler and Obama, not of a capitalist economy, kiddo…

      • Gypo Nolan permalink
        June 16, 2011 3:38

        Right but how is a a facist government supposed to be prevented? Through citizen action? Through government action? Through luck? It might be a little far to call the US a facist gov, but they are must definitely an empire. How to prevent that……

      • Gypo Nolan permalink
        June 16, 2011 3:38

        You are an idiot for comparing Hitler to Obama. You do realize the reason Hitler was bad was not because of whatever social or economic programs he endorsed, but because he militarized the state for the purpose of world domination and the destruction of minority peoples? Obama does not aim at this, do not be a fool.

  3. Gypo Nolan permalink
    June 16, 2011 3:38

    This was a comment on your Capitalism and Imperialism are Contradiction in Terms article, I am very curious for your take on this as well.

    This article is a farce. Laissez-faire capitalism has never worked nor will it ever work. War is good for profit. To say that in a free market society people would not want war because it is bad for business is comical. How about I just sell both sides arms and let them kill each other? I make a ton of profit and screw you if you don’t like it because well, that is my right as an individual.
    You can own slaves, for work and for sex in a “free market.” My company can make all sorts of pollution and I can dump it in your back yard because it is cheaper than doing it right. Don’t like it? Send me to court where I have more money than you and if that doesn’t work I send in a hit squad.
    The only people with any rights in laissez-faire capitalism are the wealthy. Everyone else is free to starve or become a wage slave.

    • June 16, 2011 3:38

      “Laissez-faire capitalism has never worked nor will it ever work. War is good for profit.”

      Who said so? And socialism is good? You must be sick in the mind to make such a claim.

      You said: “To say that in a free market society people would not want war because it is bad for business is comical.”

      Lol! Where did you get that notion? In a capitalist society, it is the role of the government to protect rights. To law a police force to protect individuals from criminals, law courts to settle disputes, and military to protect the nation from internal and external threat.

      “How about I just sell both sides arms and let them kill each other?”

      Then you have to face the full force of the law. Capitalism is NOT anarchism, kiddo.

      This one takes the STUPIDITY CAKE: “You can own slaves, for work and for sex in a “free market.”

      LMAO! So Capitalism now allows slavery… How fantastic. You really don’t know what you’re talking about. Read more from this link… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/

      • Gypo Nolan permalink
        June 16, 2011 3:38

        “Who said so? And socialism is good? You must be sick in the mind to make such a claim.”

        I always see Socialism attacked as a response to attacks on Capitalism, which confuses me. For one I am not automatically arguing for Socialism by questioning Capitalism, I am simply looking for an alternate possibility.

        Secondly no Socialist country is the same, neither is any Capitalist country. As you say the US uses it’s own blend between the two, Europe uses it’s own variation. Russia, China, and Cuba had different models of Communism. So to as a blanket statement say either Capitalism or Socialism is bad would be a mistake. It is also an error to simply use the last 100 years worth of evidence against Socialism. Russian Communism was often brutal, however the previous rule of the Czars was just as much so, just because a loony like Stalin ruled a country which adopted an idea does not make the idea loony. Cuba is a poor example of Socialism as well. How is a any country expected to survive economically when it’s largest most economically powerful neighbor puts a trade embargo on it, and constantly seeks to undermine it? I think any nation Capitalist or not would suffer.

        Socialism must be tested in a nation which has already successfully gone through the process of Capitalism as Marx once said. It makes no sense to have a poor country try and work it’s way up from the ground as socialist.

        Also I for one dislike the idea of either fullblown socialism or Communism. I feel a balance can be met, however in a country like the US, the military has become fat too powerful and the “Democracy” far too ineffective.

        The US has only had the economic edge over the last 60 years due to their infrastructure remaining intact during WWII, whilst the rest of the industrial world was in rubble. This enabled them to invest in the rebuilding of the world during which they cemented control of the markets. The cold war was about ensuring control of the world’s markets, because a world full of Communist countries is bad for business. Now the rest of the world is catching up, they want control of their natural resources, and just because imperialism gave those resources to the west in the past and continues to do so today, I see no capitalist justification for the west maintaining those resources.

      • Gypo Nolan permalink
        June 16, 2011 3:38

        Imperialist crimes have been committed against most nations of the world, in order to make the playing field fair for capitalism again, the crimes must be righted. That must include restoring the natural resources of nations to the natives that live their, because in most cases they were taken by force.

      • Gypo Nolan permalink
        June 17, 2011 3:38

        Also It must be noted that I’m bringing up another’s comment here, not my own, I was just curious as to your response.

      • June 17, 2011 3:38

        It seems that you don’t understand what your talking about. If we stick to the definition given by Karl Marx, then you’re probably right that there’s no socialist country on earth today. But it’s not Karl Marx’s definition that’s controlling, but the real concept of socialism.

        Just as there are DEGREES of capitalism, so there are degrees of socialism. The freer the country, the lesser its degree of state intervention and the higher the degree of its economic freedom then the more it is closer to the concept of capitalism. The same principle applies to socialism. The best representation of socialism is North Korea wherein property is owned by the state and that there is no economic and individual freedom. Other countries like Cuba and Venezuela are going to that direction.

        In order to institute socialism, you have to abrogate people’s individual rights, particularly the right to property and make the state the dictator of the people. You have to understand more about socialism and capitalism.

        Capitalism is not merely bad; it is EVIL, idiot! Why? Because it abrogates your property right! It’s useless to argue with you because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Also, in a capitalist society, imperialism is not necessary because the system recognizes that the source of wealth is man’s mind. Wealth is NOT created by brute force or invasion. It is created by letting men pursue their ambitions and professions, and this is possible only under a free market system that respects individual rights, property rights and IP rights.

      • Gypo Nolan permalink
        June 17, 2011 3:38

        “Just as there are DEGREES of capitalism, so there are degrees of socialism. The freer the country, the lesser its degree of state intervention and the higher the degree of its economic freedom then the more it is closer to the concept of capitalism. The same principle applies to socialism. The best representation of socialism is North Korea wherein property is owned by the state and that there is no economic and individual freedom. Other countries like Cuba and Venezuela are going to that direction.”

        It seems like you are defining a country’s economic situation merely by it’s economic system. There are too many other factors for one to come to that consensus.

        “In order to institute socialism, you have to abrogate people’s individual rights, particularly the right to property and make the state the dictator of the people. You have to understand more about socialism and capitalism.”

        I disagree. Why does there have to be a 100% limit of rights? Throughout history governments have limited their citizens rights to a degree, that is the point of government and law. As of now the US and Europe have elements of socialism, why can there not be some of these elements and not others? Isn’t it the people’s right in a Democracy to make such choices?

        “Capitalism is not merely bad; it is EVIL, idiot! Why? Because it abrogates your property right! It’s useless to argue with you because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Also, in a capitalist society, imperialism is not necessary because the system recognizes that the source of wealth is man’s mind. Wealth is NOT created by brute force or invasion. It is created by letting men pursue their ambitions and professions, and this is possible only under a free market system that respects individual rights, property rights and IP rights.”

        I’m assuming you meant to say Socialism. Not sure why you call me idiot though, I suppose my questions are hard for you to answer as many are left unanswered.

        In a model capitalist society imperialism may not be NECESSARY however that does not make it impossible or even unlikely. I am not debating the virtues of the model, I am debating the reality. What if the value of the man’s mind is in his ability to take advantage of others, to be an imperialist. This has been a very common occurrence for the past 400 years.

        I do not know how you can say that war is not profitable. In the case of the occupation of Iraq the vice president ot the united states gave the contracting rights to the rebuilding effort to Halliburton of which he was formally the CEO. Are you arguing that there is no spoils in war? Once more in the case of Iraq, by invading, the US has moved to create a favorable situation for itself in terms of access to the oil in Iraq (profitable) and by making it a US friendly market for all its other products . It may not be profitable for the US government which receives its funds from the people but it is profitable for US companies.

        Also I must address indirect Imperialism which is far less cost consuming for the Empire nation. In this case they simply need to control the country from the top whilst the nation oppresses itself with it’s own troops. They do this by controlling elections and staging coups. This has often been done by the US to nations which even should they be friendly to the US, do not wish to give them access to their natural resources.

        “It is created by letting men pursue their ambitions and professions, and this is possible only under a free market system that respects individual rights, property rights and IP rights.”

        What then if a man is not motivated by money, what if his motivation comes from something else say bettering his society? Then in a capitalist society such a man is doomed, and discriminated against. It is just as unfair to limit the freedoms of a man whos desire is purely to better himself as it is to limit a man who has no interest in the matter. The only way to solve this is by finding a balance.

        Do you really think that there will ever be a day when liberals or conservatives (as we call them in the US) will not exist? The battle can not be won completely for either side, and it is wrong to oppress either against their wishes. The only solution is to find a balanced compromise between the two systems.

        Just as it is the purpose of capitalism to help man grow, and it is the purpose of socialism to help society as a whole to grow from the bottom up, it is best if our political economic systems grow using the best of both .

  4. Gypo Nolan permalink
    June 17, 2011 3:38

    Your failure to answer most of my questions is not very convincing.

  5. Gypo Nolan permalink
    June 17, 2011 3:38

    I am honestly interested by some of your points mainly the idea that without the government institutions that monitor business, business would not be able to control the government and use it for their benefit. However because such a situation has never occurred, I still have very many concerns which you are failing to answer. Is it not better to try and explain things than to insult me and dismiss my opinions based on lack of knowledge. I could just as easily say the same things to you and nobody would be getting anywhere.

    • June 17, 2011 3:38

      No, I don’t think you’re interested in my views. If you were then you should have read and understand my blogs. Your stupid questions prove that you don’t understand both the concept of socialism and capitalism. I have explained these things in my previous blogs. I have explained the proper concept of capitalism in my previous blog. The fact that you attribute human atrocities to capitalism such as slavery, corporatism, imperialism, crimes, etc. to capitalism shows your ignorance and your dishonesty. I want my commenter or critic to be honest. Honesty means you should understand first where I’m coming from, my ideology and my views before posting stupid comments and asking idiotic questions. I have answered all your questions in my previous blogs. Read them. I don’t have a duty to enlighten you because of your dishonesty.

      Capitalism is a specific concept. You cannot say, this is capitalism because this is what most leftists and idiotic statists say about it. Let me reiterate the concept of capitalism since you’re so dishonest.

      This economic system has the following attributes:

      1) it is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

      2) it means a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

      3) its moral justification does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.”

      4) it is a system wherein all human relationships are voluntary, and that men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.

      It means capitalism has the following institutions:

      1. LIMITED GOVERNMENT. It means government with LIMITED powers. Its powers are delimited and defined by OBJECTIVE law that respects rights. Thus, the government cannot institutionalize any form of slavery, gangsterism, oppression, etc.

      2. RULE OF LAW. The laws must be objective and consistent with INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

      3. The only PROPER ROLE of government is to PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Man has a right to LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Thus, the government cannot imprison you without DUE PROCESS. The government cannot sent the military or its agents to arrest you or search your house without warrant of arrest or search warrant examined or signed by a proper judicial authority.

      4. ECONOMIC FREEDOM. It means the separation of state and economy. The government cannot simply issue coercive laws and regulations.

      All these attributes and concepts are abrogated by socialism.

      • Gypo Nolan permalink
        June 17, 2011 3:38

        Thanks for this reply I appreciate it, many of your older posts when I try to read them it says they can’t be found, that is partially why I figured I could just ask you the questions.

        “4) it is a system wherein all human relationships are voluntary, and that men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.”

        This is where I see the problem. I don’t think the human relationships end up being voluntary, because there is already a system and set up rules in place. The means of production are already controlled by certain individuals whilst other individuals have nothing of value to their name, there only option being to become in essence a machine working for the production. This is in order to survive. How can proper capitalism as you do a very good job of describing result from a system such as this? The playing field is simply unfair from the start, you would attribute this to a man’s ideas giving him all that he has earned however that is obviously no true, all men are born into their position and have no decision in the matter. It is not voluntary whatsoever.

      • June 17, 2011 3:38

        “This is where I see the problem. I don’t think the human relationships end up being voluntary, because there is already a system and set up rules in place.”

        What system and rules? The state cannot interfere with private lives and affairs unless its actions are justified by externalities like crimes, rebellion, treason, espionage and violating of rights by criminals.

        “The means of production are already controlled by certain individuals whilst other individuals have nothing of value to their name, there only option being to become in essence a machine working for the production.”

        The term “means of production” implies that some people other than individual himself own it. It’s a contradiction in terms. What individuals own are their personal tangible and intangible properties. For instance, you buy a car, you own it and nobody can take it away from you.

        Example:

        Pedro started a company that creates furniture products. He can hire men and women to work for him and pay them according to their ability/work. Thus, Pedro owns that company. You cannot expect everybody to own companies, but others with ability and creativity can establish their business and hire people.

        Bill Gates started as a Harvard student. He didn’t have enough capital, but with his sheer ability he created Microsoft and became one of the richest men on earth. Gokongwei started selling ukay-ukay before he became a billionaire. What about others who “have nothing of value to their name”? Help them if you can! It’s not the fault of Pedro or Juan that others like Kulas and Karyo are poor because they’re lazy and incompetent.

        Wealth is not created by the government; it is created by men who are free to pursue their economic and professional goals.

      • Gypo Nolan permalink
        June 17, 2011 3:38

        I just think that it hurts nobody to supply basic tools to citizens so that they can better pursue their economic and professional goals. What is the negative to supplying something like education? If a student is strong enough, shouldn’t they be able to go to college rather than to toil for many years just trying to afford it?

        You say wealth is not created by the government, but they do employ people, doesn’t that create wealth? I know that FDR created many public works projects that boosted the economy and provided many jobs, they also helped make the US what it is today.

        If someone is born into poverty then they are poor by default not because they are lazy or stupid. The majority of people are not wealthy, do you expect them all to work there way out of poverty, because that is impossible. Or do you really think they are all poor due to laziness?

        Many African Americans are poor because they are the descendants of slaves, and because they have been discriminated against and given worse chances at success. Less education, less rights, less money, less opportunity. How can they recover from so many years of mistreatment in the ideal capitalism you describe?

        What about the victims of imperialism? How are they expected to exist in a capitalist world after their opportunities have already been taken from them 100s of years before they were born?

        To me the least that can be done is to ensure fair workers rights, supply the public with enough education to compete, and to provide basic health care. This in order to allow a more honest capitalism to emerge, not just the product of so many years of oppression.

        “Pedro started a company that creates furniture products. He can hire men and women to work for him and pay them according to their ability/work. Thus, Pedro owns that company. You cannot expect everybody to own companies, but others with ability and creativity can establish their business and hire people.”

        What if Pedro lives in a country where the only jobs pay hardly enough to survive on? He ill never be able to afford starting a furniture company. His standard of living will be terrible his entire life. The companies are all foreign owned and in order to get by he must work for one. Even if he is able to somehow start a company, how can he compete with the already present behemoth if it pays its workers basically nothing, and thus is able to sell its products for very cheap. There are not any real opportunities for Pedro. His family are decedents of farmers and were able to live off of the bounty of the land, but the land is gone now. He is in the city, a slave.

  6. June 17, 2011 3:38

    “I just think that it hurts nobody to supply basic tools to citizens so that they can better pursue their economic and professional goals. What is the negative to supplying something like education?”

    It hurts nobody if you do it on your own. Leave others alone. You have all the freedom and right to help other people. People can choose to help other people without asking the government to make sacrifices. Education and other social services are not a right.

    • Gypo Nolan permalink
      June 17, 2011 3:38

      I also have the freedom to be part of a democracy that decides to invest its funds which come FROM THE PEOPLE into society. Otherwise the public streets I walk on and the public parks I go to would be privately owned. The national parks would be privately owned. Schools would only be for the wealthy or for those who are lucky enough to run into a school run by charity. It’s elitism based on the lie that the elite have earned what they have or that their ideas have gotten them where they are. If you understood a lick about history you would know that classes have a root in racism, Imperialism, and slavery. Capitalism is not evil, you are.

    • Gypo Nolan permalink
      June 17, 2011 3:38

      Your idea is very silly, a French style revolution would occur before the majority of the world embraced the slave society which you envision.

      • June 17, 2011 3:38

        This, my friend, shows again your dishonesty, utter ignorance and stupidity. I don’t even know what you’re talking about and what you’re trying to criticize. Another strawman argument back by NOTHING.

        Would you care to add your sources and facts?

        As to the French revolution, read this https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/constitution-framers-ignoramuses/

        Statism and collectivism like fascism, Nazism, socialism and communism are for slave society which you envision.

        You idiotic argument is actually the main argument of the leftists.

        Read these…
        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/does-capitalism-produce-slavery-monopoly-unearned-wealth/

        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/insane-socialists/

        Again, the more you post baseless and highly idiotic comments, the more you prove yourself to be an ignoramus, dishonest and not willing to learn.

      • Gypo Nolan permalink
        June 17, 2011 3:38

        I was simply letting you know that there will never be a laissez- faire world, not in 1,000,000 years.

  7. Gypo Nolan permalink
    June 17, 2011 3:38

    You try (and fail miserably) to use Hitler and facism as evidence of the evils of socialism. It was not the Nazi’s placing of society ahead of the individual that made it bad! It was it’s ELITISM! The Nazis sought to exterminate the “weak” and “stupid” who were “inferior” to them. Where as your capitalism slowly kills and enslaves the “weak” and “stupid” whilst using the false justification that if any of them are smart and hard working enough they should be able to pull themselves out of it. Not unlike a Jew who must keep on the Nazis good side working for them until he has secured himself enough safety. Sickening.

    Facism is often racist, and so it seems is your capitalism. By disregarding racial history completely you have lied yourself into thinking that certain peoples of the world are worse off because they deserve it, and because they are inferior. That is racism.

    Your definition of intelligence which leads to success is deeply flawed as well. If someone’s intelligence and hardwork is not profitable it is disregarded as useless. However you would be relying on uncontrollable factors to make that determination. If a genius author were to write a book (someone like Ayn Rand) they would be completely at the mercy of the public as to whether or not the book would be a success. You are defining ones intelligence by their class (elitism) which is fools work. A poor person can be very smart, and a rich person very stupid. The only way one can truly create ideal capitalism is if there is a fair playing field for the poor and rich. Your Laissez-faire capitalism is about as much of a fair playing field as you might find in an ancient feudal society.

    • June 17, 2011 3:38

      “You try (and fail miserably) to use Hitler and facism as evidence of the evils of socialism. It was not the Nazi’s placing of society ahead of the individual that made it bad! It was it’s ELITISM!”

      This is why it is useless to educate you because of your ignorance. When I pointed out to the evils of Hitler, I was describing the evils of fascism and STATISM/COLLECTIVISM. Socialism and fascism are two sides of the same collectivism. Educate yourself more https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/communism-and-fascism-the-twin-evils-of-collectivism/

      https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/insane-socialists/

      Let me establish the following points to demolish the fallacious claim of most stupid advocates of communism in this country:

      1. Communism, fascism, and capitalism are three terms with distinct meaning, concept, or definition.
      2. Fascism and capitalism do not have the same meaning and concept. In fact they are opposites.
      3. Fascism is about “radical and authoritarian” rule of a political despot, while capitalism is a political system that respects individual rights and recognizes the application of objective laws and legal principles.
      4. Communism is a collectivist political ideology that rejects individual rights, subjugates the individual to the collective, and regards man as the means to the ends of others or the state. Capitalism is the recognition that the individual is an end in himself and not the means to the ends of others.
      5. Communism and fascism are both a collectivist ideology.

      For the benefit of those who embrace reason and who are still willing to think and to use their mind, let me lay down the similarities between Communism and Fascism. They are as follows:

      * Both communism and fascism reject the concept of individual rights. Both regard the individual as the means to the ends of others. Capitalism does the opposite.
      * Both communism and fascism are collectivist ideologies.
      * Both communism and fascism are a form of totalitarian rule or dictatorship. Any individual may be sacrificed or immolated for the sake of common good, public welfare, or whatever the majority or the dictator deems as ‘practical’ or ‘necessary’ for the sake of the good of the majority or the state.
      * Both communism and fascism negate the concept of private property. If communism regards private property as nonexistent, fascism regards private property as a political privilege that may only be given to a special class or group of people (e.g., cronies, czars, etc.)
      * Both communism and fascism regard that political power may only be achieved through bloody revolution or class struggle.
      * Both communism and fascism are racist ideologies. Karl Marx regarded the capitalist people or states as “racial trash”, while Adolf Hitler considered the Jews and ethnic minorities as lower forms of animal.
      * Both communism and fascism are enemies of capitalism.
      * Both communism and fascism consider the fact that killing is necessary to achieve their respective political or utopian goal.

      https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/the-orwellian-deception-of-the-collectivists/

      https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/commies/

      • Gypo Nolan permalink
        June 17, 2011 3:38

        I have never been arguing for Facism or for totalitarian communism, so your attacks against these mean nothing to me. Here is my problem.

        “Adolf Hitler considered the Jews and ethnic minorities as lower forms of animal.”

        You consider poor people to be lower forms of animal, you say they are stupid and lazy and deserve what they have, nothing more. THIS is what makes you racist, you ignore the contexts and history that have lead the world’s current cultures to where they are today.

        Obama is not leading America towards totalitarian communism, that is the sort of lie one would here on Fox news. It is very possible to maintain a country with aspects of socialism but without totalitarianism, facism, violence, and lack of political freedom. This is the society I desire. Not the communisms you frequently site. You cannot say that having even 1% socialism in a country will lead to totalitarian communism because it is not true. The US has employed aspects of socialism for over 100 years.

      • June 18, 2011 3:38

        I repeat, socialism and fascism are just two sides of the same collectivism. You won’t understand this because you’re an idiot.

        “You consider poor people to be lower forms of animal, you say they are stupid and lazy and deserve what they have, nothing more. THIS is what makes you racist, you ignore the contexts and history that have lead the world’s current cultures to where they are today.”

        You said that. I never said such a thing. Absent proof and evidence to your baseless, stupid, dishonest assertion, that remains a moronic speculation made by a mindless statist like you.

  8. Gypo Nolan permalink
    June 17, 2011 3:38

    Why do you consistently ignore most of my questions

    “Imperialist crimes have been committed against most nations of the world, in order to make the playing field fair for capitalism again, the crimes must be righted. That must include restoring the natural resources of nations to the natives that live their, because they were taken by force.”

    “What about the victims of imperialism? How are they expected to exist in a capitalist world after their opportunities have already been taken from them 100s of years before they were born?”

    “Also, there is much talk of benefiting from one’s ideas, but what about one’s work? Is that worth nothing? If a man is blessed with physical talent and the ability to work hard, but no brains or ingenuity, is he destined to suffer?”

    “The Nazis sought to exterminate the “weak” and “stupid” who were “inferior” to them. Where as your capitalism slowly kills and enslaves the “weak” and “stupid” whilst using the false justification that if any of them are smart and hard working enough they should be able to pull themselves out of it. Not unlike a Jew who must keep on the Nazis good side working for them until he has secured himself enough safety. Sickening.

    Facism is often racist, and so it seems is your capitalism. By disregarding racial history completely you have lied yourself into thinking that certain peoples of the world are worse off because they deserve it, and because they are inferior. That is racism.

    Your definition of intelligence which leads to success is deeply flawed as well. If someone’s intelligence and hardwork is not profitable it is disregarded as useless. However you would be relying on uncontrollable factors to make that determination. If a genius author were to write a book (someone like Ayn Rand) they would be completely at the mercy of the public as to whether or not the book would be a success. You are defining ones intelligence by their class (elitism) which is fools work. A poor person can be very smart, and a rich person very stupid. The only way one can truly create ideal capitalism is if there is a fair playing field for the poor and rich. Your Laissez-faire capitalism is about as much of a fair playing field as you might find in an ancient feudal society.”

    • Gypo Nolan permalink
      June 17, 2011 3:38

      You just don’t want to admit that you don’t give a damn.

      All you can do is constantly reiterate how bad communism is and how in a perfect model capitalism is fair.

    • June 18, 2011 3:38

      uLOL! Cite facts and sources. It’s all gibberish.

  9. Gypo Nolan permalink
    June 17, 2011 3:38

    “If the government did not interfere in the economy, there would have been real competition among market players, thus ending any form of slavery.”

    This is from your link, which I had already read before talking to you.

    The problem is, I’m not trying to blame slavery on capitalism. I’m saying that because slavery happened entire peoples were unfairly brought down to lower levels of existence thus giving them a disadvantage in a capitalist world. This happened for 1000s of years. This is why capitalism is not fair, the effects of slavery and imperialism are with us today, they still occur and must be accounted for.

    “Do you think a slave pen of 100 million people can produce a revolutionary machine without stealing the products of the free men who produce wealth in their private capacity?” Why can’t they buy the revolutionary machine? The slave based company would not be the very bets company, but it could still survive due to its ridiculous efficiency. It could take 100s of years before slavery was no longer profitable enough to stay competitive with apposing techniques. Why should someone live in slavery at all? Why not just ban slavery and uphold a decent level of human rights? Because profit is impossible if you limit a businessman’s ability to lower wages? Nonsense, he can adapt to the conditions, if he fails to adapt he is weak and stupid as you would say. Limiting how much one can exploit is the same as having a limit on the size of the earth, you only complain because it limits profit.

  10. June 18, 2011 3:38

    “I’m saying that because slavery happened entire peoples were unfairly brought down to lower levels of existence thus giving them a disadvantage in a capitalist world.”

    Are you that stupid? Humans descended from slavery. It was biblical in the first place. There was slavery thousands of years before America was established more than 200 years ago, and it was America that abolished slavery. There was slavery in Islamic countries during the Ottoman empire and even today. There was slavery in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Maoist China and there’s slavery in China, North Korea, and other socialist and semi-socialist countries today.

    Only the government can create slavery through slave policies and bureaucratic fiat. The kind of slavery you’re trying to attack will only exist in a socialist and semi-socialist societies. It will never exist in a capitalist economy because the rule of law and the system will not permit it. I have laid down the concept of capitalism above and it seems that you just don’t want to listen. Thus, this is my final reply to you because of your habit to context-drop, misrepresent and distort my views. Don’t be so stupid! Study and learn more, kid.

    Slavery won’t exist in a CAPITALIST ECONOMY because the rule of law and the system will NOT permit it.

    Here’s what you should do.

    1. Present my arguments which you disagree with and support them with links and quotations.

    2. Present your refutations and arguments.

    3. Present your alternative views.

    4. Tell me your ideal society. If it’s not capitalism or socialism, tell it to me.

    • Gypo Nolan permalink
      June 18, 2011 3:38

      “Slavery won’t exist in a CAPITALIST ECONOMY because the rule of law and the system will NOT permit it. ”

      You still don’t get the point I’m trying to make, and yes I guess it’s because I’m stupid no need to tell me again and again.

      “You asked: “If you are born into a more educated more wealthy family then you have a natural edge which often leads to the “ideas” you might speak of.”

      So what? You’d like to pass a law that would make us all physically and mentally equal?”

      “The children are our nation’s future, so we must invest in education in order to secure the future of our society, they preach, disregarding the fact that the very idea they seek to implement simply means “redistribution of wealth.” ‘ From your article on Right to Education

      What’s so bad about redistribution of wealth if the wealth was previously not earned by just lawful causes?

      I don’t want to pass a law that makes us physically and mentally equal, but I want there to be laws which do prevent discrimination against races, sexes, people of disability, people without money, etc. The only way that is done is by providing basic needs so that the only advantage one might have is superior ideas or hardwork.

      Continuing to read your “Right to Education” you blame your countries debt issues on welfare as apposed to the military and argue that the military is a priority. I can’t argue concerning the Philippines, however in the US the military spending has reached outrageous levels with much of the military occupying space far beyond US borders, it it far overextended. The government’s money should be focused at home where the US education level has reached some of the poorest levels it has ever seen. I have not even mentioned the US debt which is a joke. Yet conservatives blame the debt on welfare just like you do whilst never even considering lowering the military budget, I know many US soldiers and they are allotted unneeded funds constantly which they will spend on any random thing they can think of. As long as the government is taxing citizens I will argue that those taxes should be spent primarily on education, welfare, healthcare, the environment, the law, and public works. The threat of invasion has not existed for a long time, and the terrorist threat is hogwosh.

      Also the idea that a man’s idea creates wealth has been well stated. I however can not see how a man’s work is not valued in this process at all. Using the example of a man discovering a mine and knowing how to set out mining. Doesn’t the man still need to find men to do the work, and don’t they have any sort of natural rights as workers? I just don’t think I agree when you say that only a man’s ideas produce wealth.

      • June 18, 2011 3:38

        I don’t think it is possible to argue with an extraordinarily halfwitted guy like you.

        “You still don’t get the point I’m trying to make, and yes I guess it’s because I’m stupid no need to tell me again and again.”

        – Then make your statement clear. What did I not get?

        “What’s so bad about redistribution of wealth if the wealth was previously not earned by just lawful causes?”

        – Do you understand the concept of redistribution of wealth? Get some proper education first and then get back here. What do you mean by “not earned by just lawful causes?” Kindly expound on this. I’m interested.

        “I don’t want to pass a law that makes us physically and mentally equal, but I want there to be laws which do prevent discrimination against races, sexes, people of disability, people without money, etc.

        – As to this stupid line, “laws which do prevent discrimination against races, sexes, people of disability”… HOW and WHY?

        “The only way that is done is by providing basic needs so that the only advantage one might have is superior ideas or hardwork.”

        – Who will provide these basic needs and who will be sacrificed? Where will the government get the money?

        “As long as the government is taxing citizens I will argue that those taxes should be spent primarily on education, welfare, healthcare, the environment, the law, and public works.”

        That’s what the American government is doing that’s why it has more than $14-trillion in debt. That’s slavery in the first place. You tax those who earn more in order to serve the jobless, the incompetent and the lazy! This is what the Philippine government is doing that’s why the country is deeply indebted, poor and beset by corruption. Do you know why the Philippine economy is in bad shape? It’s because investors and businessmen are afraid of the RP’s high tax rates, massive regulations, and protectionism. All of these were established in the name of the poor whom you intend to help with your IDIOTIC, EVIL IDEA.

        Your idea will never create a prosperous society, but a society of institutionalized slavery, corruption, DEPENDENCY, FREELOADERS, unemployment, and hopelessness. It has been tried and established by most societies in the past- they might have differed in terms of policies and degree of collectivization- but they suffered the same result: societal collapse and great misery that punished its intended beneficiaries- the poor.

  11. Gypo Nolan permalink
    June 18, 2011 3:38

    Well thanks for your time, I don’t know why you responded to all of my comments, I usually just won’t stop whether it’s baseball, film, or whatever. I will try to better contemplate your point of view over time, though it’s not as if my core values are going to easily go away. However you said you were interested in what I meant by “unjust unlawful causes”, I was referring to past government corruption, imperialism, racism etc of which the accounts are countless, that led to individuals becoming very wealthy without having done so by their ideas as you speak of. Perhaps if proper capitalism were implemented, then over great lengths of time things would be set straight, however from what I can tell, any sort of morality associated with fairness is not of importance, as the past indiscretions are countless and how could any method sort them out. I did learn allot about your point of view even if I did not illustrate so in my comments, most were reactionary based on my already cemented beliefs, and composed with minimal effort. I hope your life is not worse for it. Until next time, PEACE!

  12. Gypo Nolan permalink
    June 18, 2011 3:38

    By the way, feel free to delete our entire discussion if you feel the need. It was hardly related to your post.

  13. Gypo Nolan permalink
    June 18, 2011 3:38

    Sorry I have to comment on this, though I won’t be returning to view your response, this has to end somewhere.

    “That’s what the American government is doing that’s why it has more than $14-trillion in debt. That’s slavery in the first place.
    The US government’s debt is due to it’s overspending overall, not just because it overspends on welfare. It is easy to see that It spends far too much on the military budget and national security, especially considering that the cold war is over, and that the terrorist threat was never what it was made up to be.

    “You tax those who earn more in order to serve the jobless, the incompetent and the lazy!”

    First of all, everyone gets taxed from poor to middle class to wealthy to rich to very rich to insanely rich, there is not just one group that gets taxed it’s a scale. Why the disdain for the jobless? If you are referring to the unemployed isn’t that an economy’s problem because it is failing to produce jobs? Or are you just hating on bumbs? I also don’t see how you can be frustrated with Incompetency if you are arguing for taking away public education, as many stupid people as there are now, wouldn’t there just be more? I also can’t express this enough, but why do you constantly equate laziness to poverty and hard work to wealth, there is obviously so much more to it than that.

    I told myself I was done commenting here but shit happens.

    • June 18, 2011 3:38

      Have you the encountered the terms “progressive tax” and economic regulations?

  14. December 11, 2012 3:38

    Hi there! This blog post could not be written much better!
    Going through this article reminds me of my previous roommate!
    He constantly kept talking about this. I most certainly will forward this information
    to him. Fairly certain he will have a very good read. Thank you for sharing!

  15. April 22, 2013 3:38

    Very good posts and style of blogging. It looks like I’ll check back on this web site later and find out just what else you’ve got
    in store! 😉 Now i’m going to find if I truly may possibly come across some thing on the topic of treatment for nodular and cystic acne!!

  16. May 1, 2013 3:38

    Remarkable expert articles and style of posting. It looks like
    I’ll come back on this web site at a later time to see what else you may have available 🙂 !!! I am likely to find if I just can come across nearly anything focused on lose fat quickly from stomach!!

  17. July 28, 2013 3:38

    Excellent confident analytical vision for the purpose of details and may anticipate difficulties just before they happen.

  18. October 16, 2013 3:38

    If some one wants to be updated with latest technologies then he must be go to
    see this web site and be up to date everyday.

  19. November 28, 2013 3:38

    Wonderful blog! I found it while browsing on Yahoo News.
    Do you have any tips on how to get listed in Yahoo
    News? I’ve been trying for a while but I never
    seem to get there! Thanks

  20. April 20, 2014 3:38

    Your way of telling everything in this piece of writing is truly good, all be capable of
    effortlessly understand it, Thanks a lot.

Trackbacks

  1. PNOY's Highly Mediocre “Conditional Cash Transfers” « THE … -Political Fund USA
  2. Political Campaign Expert » Blog Archive » PNOY's Highly Mediocre “Conditional Cash Transfers” « THE …
  3. Pres. Aquino’s Politics of ‘Dependence’ and 21st Century Plantation « THE VINCENTON POST
  4. Chain Smoker Pnoy’s ‘Christmas Gift’: A Dangerous Trojan Horse for Welfare Dictatorship « THE VINCENTON POST
  5. RH Scam and the PH Government’s 21st Century Plantation « THE VINCENTON POST
  6. Pres. Aquino’s Politics of ‘Dependence’ and 21st Century Plantation - VINCENTON BLOG

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: